Middle East Democracy

[Michael]

I've often argued that the problems of the Middle East are endemic and native to the region. That is to say, the present mess in the Middle East owes more to the nature of Arab politics and Arab culture as it does to 'western imperialism'.

Here's a nice short article that makes precisely this argument...

None But Us to Blame (http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/956/op6.htm)

And here's another, more substantive, article that addresses the just released UN report on Arab Human Development. Again, the fingers are pointed right back at Arab culture and Arab politics as the principle cause of the lack of human development in this region.

Arab Human Development Report (http://www.thenational.ae/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090731/REVIEW/707309974/1008/)

I think this second article hits the nail on the head. Arab governments seem to be obsessed with security of the state, sacrificing anything and everything to serve this interest. This is highly damaging to Arabic society.

For the Arabic Middle East to become anything but a collection of tyrannical regimes and miserable people, the people need their own personal security. Personal security is the route to civility and prosperity - and all are in short supply in the Middle East.

Without individual security, the Middle East is doomed to political deterioration.

Any thoughts or comments on how Arabic nations in the Middle East can meaningfully address this issue?

[Non Sequitur]

Democracy is an institution that has been evolving in the West for hundred years and taken millions of lives to fight for it. Only relatively recently has the concept become stable in the West. It is silly to assume that the Middle East can have strong functioning democracies without a similar amount of work.

[Michael]

Democracy is an institution that has been evolving in the West for hundred years and taken millions of lives to fight for it. Only relatively recently has the concept become stable in the West. It is silly to assume that the Middle East can have strong functioning democracies without a similar amount of work.
While I agree in principle with your point, I think it is relevant to point out that Arab culture likes to pride itself on being more civilized and more advanced than western culture. They particularly like to point out how advanced they were compared to the west back in the 15th century.

If that's true, then why has Arab culture lagged so far behind ever since?

Why did the west develop democracy and stability and the Arabs not?

[Donkey]

I wrote a paper on this a couple years back. I'll see if I can dig it up. (Perhaps more interesting are a couple of my sources though. ;))

[Greendruid]

While I agree in principle with your point, I think it is relevant to point out that Arab culture likes to pride itself on being more civilized and more advanced than western culture. They particularly like to point out how advanced they were compared to the west back in the 15th century.

If that's true, then why has Arab culture lagged so far behind ever since?

Why did the west develop democracy and stability and the Arabs not?

The west had a Renaissance, the Arab nations did not. I submit that this facet of Western culture is precisely the point upon which the already existent ideas of personal property, individualism, romantic love and even, to some degree, the death of god were hinged. The West became more humanistic as a result of the Renaissance and this is the crux of democracy. Exploration of the Western hemisphere probably had a lot to do with it to. The birth of the scientific method, ironically thanks in large part to Arab scholars preserving all those Greek and Latin texts lost in the Dark Ages, was only encouraged by the physical exploration of the earth by the "natural historians" and the metaphysical exploration of the soul by the artists of the renaissance. The Arab nations, while possessing these texts from ancient civilisations, rejected their equality as explanations for the universe over their very young religion, Islam. The power of their clerics was, and still is, too great in many of those nations today. However, there seems to be a stirring of such a cultural revolution in places like Iran and certainly Turkey provides a constant influence as a bridge between Middle East and the West.

[Non Sequitur]

While I agree in principle with your point, I think it is relevant to point out that Arab culture likes to pride itself on being more civilized and more advanced than western culture. They particularly like to point out how advanced they were compared to the west back in the 15th century.

If that's true, then why has Arab culture lagged so far behind ever since?

Why did the west develop democracy and stability and the Arabs not?[/

those question assumes that democracy is the mark of a more advanced society. I think the Chinese and several other societies would beg to differ.

In general I think there are a variety of factors which contributed to the advancement of the west against the rest of the world such as major competittion between nations within the west.

[Michael]

those question assumes that democracy is the mark of a more advanced society. I think the Chinese and several other societies would beg to differ.
But western societies weren't democratic at all in the 15th/16th or 17th centuries. Ergo, democracy is not a relevant factor here.

However, in the 15th-16th centuries, the west demonstrated massive technical, military and financial superiority over Arabic culture.

Two or three centuries prior, Arab culture could claim to have technical, military and financial superiority over any nation in Europe.

Same goes for the Chinese.

In general I think there are a variety of factors which contributed to the advancement of the west against the rest of the world such as major competittion between nations within the west.
Yes, that "geography thesis" is a darn good one. The geography of Europe is almost uniquely suited for a large variety of viable and competitive states. The geography of China, India and Africa do not have this.

There is also the "rivers" argument as well. Europe is apparently unusually well blessed in the provision of fast flowing streams that are well suited for the 'over-shot' waterwheel. Most other places have to make do with the 'under-shot' waterwheel which supplies only about 1/10th the power.

The advantage of the 'over-shot' wheel for the development of European industry cannot be over-stressed.

[Michael]

The west had a Renaissance, the Arab nations did not. I submit that this facet of Western culture is precisely the point upon which the already existent ideas of personal property, individualism, romantic love and even, to some degree, the death of god were hinged. The West became more humanistic as a result of the Renaissance and this is the crux of democracy. Exploration of the Western hemisphere probably had a lot to do with it to. The birth of the scientific method, ironically thanks in large part to Arab scholars preserving all those Greek and Latin texts lost in the Dark Ages, was only encouraged by the physical exploration of the earth by the "natural historians" and the metaphysical exploration of the soul by the artists of the renaissance. The Arab nations, while possessing these texts from ancient civilisations, rejected their equality as explanations for the universe over their very young religion, Islam. The power of their clerics was, and still is, too great in many of those nations today. However, there seems to be a stirring of such a cultural revolution in places like Iran and certainly Turkey provides a constant influence as a bridge between Middle East and the West.

I think you are jumbling up way too much history into the Rennaissance. Many of those elements come centuries before or after the Rennaissance.

For example, the 14th century witnessed the 'end' of feudalism and its replacement with a cash-based economy. The romantic love thing originates in the 13th century (and the masses always did it that way anyway). The 'death of God' meme and the Scientific revolution don't occur until the 17th century.

Furthermore, the fact that the west got the inspriation of the rennaissance from discovery of texts that had been in the hands of Arabs - shows that the Arabs had access to exactly the same things as the west did.

How come these ancient Greek texts caused a 'rennaissance' in Europe but not in the Middle East? That suggests that there is something else that accounts for the rise of Europe in the Rennaissance and the Arabic cultural stagnation that began at exactly the same time.

* * *

One thing I'd look at is the 'first' European scientific revolution in the 12th/13th century. That seems to lay the groundwork for the rise of Europe. This revolution introduced the 'over-shot' waterwheel, advanced optics and precision metalwork needed for calibrated instruments (like astrolabes). These are the inventions that drove the 15th century exploration phase.

Likewise with the vast technical advances represented 'gothic' architecture - it is unique to Europe and far superior to anything else done anywhere. The technical advances of vaulted arches, flying arches, load-bearing arches, etc., all combined to produce a sophistication of architectural construction unlike anything elsewhere. And again, this all occured long before the rennaissance era. The Arabs certainly made beautiful architecture, but it was entirely based on refining various classical building techniques, nothing new at all.

Likewise with the printing press - it is early 15th century - notably prior to the rennaissance. The first printings were latin bibles - which is a very characteristically 'medieval' production.

As such, I'd have to say that the 14th/15th century demonstrates all of the features of the rise of Europe - all present prior to the 16th century rennaissance.

I'd say the 'rennaissance' was a consequence or symptom of the 'rise of Europe', not its cause.